Subject: [apps-discuss] RFC 1738 is made obsolete by what?

From: "Paul E. Jones" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 20:08:53 +0000

Folks,

RFC 1738 has been made obsolete, but the data that the RFC editor is 
provided (and as shown on tools) is that this document was made obsolete 
by the telnet and gopher URL schemes.  Surely that wasn't the message 
that was intended to be conveyed.  See: 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1738.

Wouldn't it be correct to say that this was made obsolete by 2396, which 
was then made obsolete by 3986?

If I'm correct, then I think the "Obsoleted By" information is 
misleading.  If I'm wrong, then I'm entirely confused and I still assert 
that it's misleading :-)

Is there a process to clarify this?

Paul

---

From: Matthew Kerwin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 07:16:22 +1000

On 26 May 2016 at 06:08, Paul E. Jones <[email-masked]> wrote:

> provided (and as shown on tools) is that this document was made obsolete by
> the telnet and gopher URL schemes.  Surely that wasn't the message that was
> intended to be conveyed.  See: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1738.
>
​It'd be good to find this out. I have in my archives a brief discussion we
had on 2013-06-26 about this very issue. It was never resolved cleanly, and
so we find ourselves here today with my file: draft which says it obsoletes
an already obsolete RFC even though it only replaces one sub-section
thereof (§3.10, about half a page of RFC 1738) -- like telnet and gopher.

I wouldn't be surprised if this piece of metadata ends up being a bit of a
blocker, so it'd be good to get it straightened up.

Cheers
-- 
  Matthew Kerwin
  http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/

---

From: t.petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 17:18:45 +0100

---- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Kerwin" <[email-masked]>
To: "Paul E. Jones" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "IETF Apps Discuss" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2016 10:16 PM

> Is there a process to clarify this?
​It'd be good to find this out. I have in my archives a brief discussion
we
had on 2013-06-26 about this very issue. It was never resolved cleanly,
and
so we find ourselves here today with my file: draft which says it
obsoletes
an already obsolete RFC even though it only replaces one sub-section
thereof (§3.10, about half a page of RFC 1738) -- like telnet and
gopher.

I wouldn't be surprised if this piece of metadata ends up being a bit of
a
blocker, so it'd be good to get it straightened up.

<tp>

Do as RFC6270 did

"6270 The 'tn3270' URI Scheme. M. Yevstifeyev. June 2011. (Format:
     TXT=10876 bytes) (Updates RFC2355, RFC1738, RFC1041) (Status:
     PROPOSED STANDARD)
"

Tom Petch

Cheers

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>